Magico S3 mk2

The Sandman said:
I get where you're coming from Mike, but I disagree... to a degree at least. The M, Q, and S series do sound different from each other, but they are all recognizable as having a "Magico sound" that is different from virtually all other brands of speakers.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
Kuoppis said:
I think Alon is a little late to the party trying to introduce carbon fibre as something novel. The material has been around for ages and has been used for years by Wilson Benesch and many others.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We had this conversation already... Although I wrote this about Marten, it still holds for WB (see below). Unlike Marten, WB actually do describe, in details, how they build their carbon profiles, it is more similar to the Marten, still a sandwich but with a thicker core. It is very different then what Magico is doing in the M6 (it is certainly not a monocoque in the way Magico describes it, i.e "6 sided, seamless, enclosure").

"The use of the word CF can mean many different things, not all CF uses in a product are the same. The only description of Marten construction method that I could find is “The carbon fiber laminate is two layers of carbon sandwiched together with honeycomb Kevlar in between”. That is very different then Magico description of a “0.6” solid carbon body”. A common thickness of one layer of CF is ~0.5mm. In that case, the Magico enclosure will have to be made of 60 layers of CF sheets in comparison to Marten’s 2 layers."

 
LVB said:
We had this conversation already... Although I wrote this about Marten, it still holds for WB (see below). Unlike Marten, WB actually do describe, in details, how they build their carbon profiles, it is more similar to the Marten, still a sandwich but with a thicker core. It is very different then what Magico is doing in the M6 (it is certainly not a monocoque in the way Magico describes it, i.e "6 sided, seamless, enclosure").
Click to expand...
My previous Marten Coltrane Alto's used a carbon composite monocoque enclosure formed in a similar way to a formula one tub. I posted some pics here.

LVB said:
"The use of the word CF can mean many different things, not all CF uses in a product are the same. The only description of Marten construction method that I could find is “The carbon fiber laminate is two layers of carbon sandwiched together with honeycomb Kevlar in between”. That is very different then Magico description of a “0.6” solid carbon body”. A common thickness of one layer of CF is ~0.5mm. In that case, the Magico enclosure will have to be made of 60 layers of CF sheets in comparison to Marten’s 2 layers."
Click to expand...
I'm not a fabricator, but how do you deduce from "0.6" what metric they're referring to? From a purely layman's perspective, that could mean 0.6mm, 0.6cm or even 0.6in. Has anyone bothered to fact check this with Magico?
 
From the M6 PR - "half-inch carbon fibre" (Sorry, for the misplaced quotation marks)
 
Interesting. Given it's sonic properties, I'm all in.

And I respectively don't agree that the M series sounds anything like the Q or S. To my ears, the M series is a quantum leap forward over the Q. And the S7/Sx mk2 series is freaking killer good.

When I had the M3's in my home, it was some of the most enjoyable, emotionally engaging listening I have ever had in nearly 40 years.

I'm afraid for my wallet to hear the M6's. If they sound as good as they look, game over. Yes, yes, yes I want a pair!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LVB said:
From the M6 PR - "half-inch carbon fibre" (Sorry, for the misplaced quotation marks)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification LVB. That confirms for me that S series models are likely to continue to be made with extruded alu cabinets for the foreseeable future, which is fine by me. Even the M3's cabinet design would roughly double the cost of an S3/S5 Mk2.

Btw, from memory the Marten Coltrane Alto's carbon monocoque cabinet had a 1/2" thick front to increase rigidity & damping. From my basic knock tests, I can attest to that claim.
 
walesi said:
I´m sure Mike will, but for us Europeans that might be the first chance. Well, you never know about Norway tho :)
Click to expand...
The Norwegians have a natural advantage though..:roflmao:.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5379.JPG
    IMG_5379.JPG
    41.3 KB · Views: 100
walesi said:
Anyway, back to the topic. I'll be getting my mk2s tomorrow!
Click to expand...
Congratulations Walesi! You must be mega excited :exciting:. Looking forward to to your 1st impressions :thumbsup:.
 
Last edited:
That´ll be interesting, coming out of S3 Mk 1:s. At least they´ll look identical with the grilles on to the casual observer :)

My amplification is Devialet 400, which seems to be a bit of a controversial issue. Some like it, some feel that the Devs sound way too lean and clinical to match the S3:s.

But, after 300 hours, we´ll find out :)
 
walesi said:
That´ll be interesting, coming out of S3 Mk 1:s. At least they´ll look identical with the grilles on to the casual observer :)

My amplification is Devialet 400, which seems to be a bit of a controversial issue. Some like it, some feel that the Devs sound way too lean and clinical to match the S3:s.

But, after 300 hours, we´ll find out :)
Click to expand...
Having heard both the S3 Mk1 & Mk2, I thought the S3 Mk2's midrange and tweeter had better resolution & were more coherent. Images were better focussed compared to the Mk1 and was quite impressive! I did get to play some rock music on the Mk2's at energetic levels & my impression was the bass units are more composed and move more air than the Mk1. However the pair I listened to only had about 90hrs on them, so the bass hadn't fully opened up & all the drivers weren't yet singing as one. My overall impression was the Mk2 was substantially better than its predecessor, but more importantly was a more engaging and more musical loudspeaker.

On the amplification front, I'd allow up to 500hrs for your speakers to be mostly run in before deciding if you're happy with the sound, or want more warmth, richness, naturalness etc. And if you later decide on a change, there are plenty of excellent options out there.
 
Melbguy1 said:
Having heard both the S3 Mk1 & Mk2, I thought the S3 Mk2's midrange and tweeter had better resolution & were more coherent. Images were better focussed compared to the Mk1 and was quite impressive! I did get to play some rock music on the Mk2's at energetic levels & my impression was the bass units are more composed and move more air than the Mk1. However the pair I listened to only had about 90hrs on them, so the bass hadn't fully opened up & all the drivers weren't yet singing as one. My overall impression was the Mk2 was substantially better than its predecessor, but more importantly was a more engaging and more musical loudspeaker.

On the amplification front, I'd allow up to 500hrs for your speakers to be mostly run in before deciding if you're happy with the sound, or want more warmth, richness, naturalness etc. And if you later decide on a change, there are plenty of excellent options out there.
Click to expand...
Having just broken in a pair of Mk IIs, I agree on the hours. Took mine approx 400- 500 estimated. Seemed to take the bass quite a while to completely settle followed by overall coherency.
 
walesi said:
Ok, so it will be even longer than with mk 1s
Click to expand...
It is mainly the bass drivers and big caps in the x-over which take several hundred hours to mostly or fully run in. And bare in mind the S3 Mk2 has completely new bass drivers and upgraded x-over parts. I've seen photos of the x-over & it's pretty substantial. It looks similar in size to the S5 Mk1's x-over. Of course run in time can/will vary depending on how loud you play your speakers, how dynamic and extended the music is, and whether you use a burn in cd. Hence YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top